Mithiles Prasad @ Mithilesh Prasad Yadav @ Mithilesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1603 of 2019 ====================================================== Mithilesh Prasad @ Mithilesh Prasad Yadav @ Mithilesh Yadav Sukhdeo Yadav @ Sukhdeo Prasad, son of Sukhdeo Yadav, Resident of Village Kanchangarh, Police Station - Ram Nagar, District - Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger.

4. The District Magistrate, Munger.

5. The Competent Officer-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Munger ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha For the Respondent State:

Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, SC-19 Mr. Birendra Prasad Singh, AC to SC-19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-01-2019 Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order, dated 17.12.2018, passed by the Competent Authority-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Munger, whereby he has directed the petitioner to remove his house and other structures on a piece of land, which has been, admittedly, acquired for the purpose of construction of approach road for Rail-cum-Road. The said order, dated 17.12.2018, specifically mentions that the petitioner has received compensation amount against the house and other structures as indicated.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.1603 of 2019(2) dt.29-01-2019 2/2 compensation amount has been paid in respect of the structures only and no compensation has been paid for acquisition of the land, over which the said construction is situated. The grievance, which the petitioner is raising, could have been raised by him, under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which the petitioner has, admittedly, not availed.

This application, therefore, cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate authority in accordance with law. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) ragini/- U √